Highway Code - rule 130 - boxed chevrons

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

wemorgan

MB Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 5, 2008
Messages
8,106
Car
A205 C220d
I often drive on the A46 near Stratford upon Avon, where the single lane traffic is divided by chevrons boarded with a broken white lines

rule 130 says

"Areas of white diagonal stripes or chevrons painted on the road. These are to separate traffic lanes or to protect traffic turning right.

if the area is bordered by a broken white line, you should not enter the area unless it is necessary and you can see that it is safe to do so"

But when is it necessary? I've driven over the chevrons to overtake slow tractors, but am I allowed to overtake HGVs that have a slower speed limit than myself on the road? Is that necessary or just preferable?

I've seen other cars do that, so sometimes tag along and copy them, but have wondered about it.
 
I think you are allowed to do what you do - but heaven help you if you hit anything as the Chevron are indicating for you take greater awareness of the right turn hazard.
Doesn't it depend if your side has broken or solid lines?
 
Both sides of the chevron have broken lines on that road. So I guess it's overtaken with caution?
 
My view is that overtaking is not "necessary" within the definition of the highway code.

Should traffic plod cite you for DWDCAT you'd be on a sticky wicket in court trying to defend against it.
 
I'm with iscaboy on this one - it's not 'necessary' for you to travel at the maximum speed limit for your car, so that's probably not a good reason for entering the chevrons. Otherwise, you could use the same logic to overtake anything that was travelling slower than the limit, not just HGVs.

However, this does beg the question: when is it necessary? Obviously if there was a static obstruction, such as a parked vehicle, you'd be OK entering the chevrons to get past (if safe to do so), but then surely that would also be true if the border lines were solid rather than broken?
 
Overtaking on hatched markings.

Well, I personally wouldn't use the hatching for overtaking.

From personal experience. Where I used to live, there was a staggered crossroads, a minor country road crossing a busy single carriageway A road. So the minor road traffic would emerge into the A road, then 25m later bear into the waiting lane to turn right into the continuation of the minor road. If you see what I mean.

Several hazards there... when the A road was busy with holiday traffic (and slow caravans, trucks etc) somebody would always scoot down the outside to find local traffic either already waiting in the turn-right, or just veering into it, having just joined the A road a few metres back from the minor road.

Or, somebody a long way back in the queue on the A road would see the straight bit with the widening and hatched markings and think "Now's my chance" - of course from where they set off to overtake, several vehicles back, they couldn't see the traffic from the minor road join the the A road, shortly to move into the turn right space that the overtaker is now approaching at speed.

Had several near misses myself, and know of several actual collisions there. Sadly one fatal.

So I don't use hatching ot turning lanes to overtake.

P.
 
I side with Wemorgan
Both sides of the chevron have broken lines on that road. Overtake with caution.

However, the number of drivers I've seen that pull across chevrons with solid lines (i.e. entering motorways) beggars belief, particularly around various western stretches of the M25.
 
Having re-read my post above... just to clarify...

My near misses were me being local traffic waiting in the turn lane to turn onto/off the A road. To be faced with a boy-racer type approaching at speed from nowhere.

And No... before you ask - at that junction, it was impossible for the minor road traffic to see anyone screaming down the outside of the line of traffic before joing the A road.

Poor road design I guess. It was a new-ish (then 20 years ago) bypass.

P.
 
Broken/Solid white lines ?

Err... a bit more.

Re the "if the lines bordering the hatching are brken or not" question.

Many drivers don't seem to know the difference between broken or solid white lines bordeing hatching. No aspersions being cast toward anyone here.

If the hatching is bordered by a solid line (and maybe if also a broken line ? dunno), then there should also be a solid white line on the nearside of the carriageway to indicate No Stopping at that point. Of course, people can break down or just plain ignore or be ignorant of the meaning of solid white lines on either side of the carriageway.

The hatching , whether bounded by solid or broken lines, should be enough in itself to warn of a hazard, and thus - to me at least - give pause for thought before using the hatched area for any use other than it was put there. For example, using the lead in to a turn lane or a traffic separation area on a bend, as an overtaking opportunity.

Now I'm going to shoot myself in the foot and refer back to my original post. At THAT PARTICULAR junction (can't remember if the hatching was surrounded by braken or solid white lines) I used to cross into the hatcing early to join the turn right waiting lane. This was deliberate so I could be seen as soon as possible by the boy racers tearing up the outside of the traffic, and thus give us both a chance. At that junction, there wouldnt be the possible problem of me then being the person on the hatching and someone joining the turn lane in front of me - it was a very short hatched area.

As a general principle, I would avoid using the hatched area to go into a turning lane in case someone else would could pull into the turn lane in front of me.

P.
 
Err... a bit more.



The hatching , whether bounded by solid or broken lines, should be enough in itself to warn of a hazard
P.

I don't think so

Rule 130 of the Highway code:


Areas of white diagonal stripes or chevrons painted on the road. These are to separate traffic lanes or to protect traffic turning right.
  • if the area is bordered by a broken white line, you should not enter the area unless it is necessary and you can see that it is safe to do so.
So overtaking is fine (apart from all the grit and trash that collects at these points ont he road:wallbash:)
:thumb:
 
I don't think so

Rule 130 of the Highway code:



Areas of white diagonal stripes or chevrons painted on the road. These are to separate traffic lanes or to protect traffic turning right.
  • if the area is bordered by a broken white line, you should not enter the area unless it is necessary and you can see that it is safe to do so.
So overtaking is fine (apart from all the grit and trash that collects at these points ont he road:wallbash:)
:thumb:

Erm ... Isn't the stationary traffic waiting to turn right a hazard ?
And presumably, the traffic lanes were separated for a reason ?

And... Overtaking a slow moving vehicle (like a tractor at 15mph) might be seen as necessary, but what of other vehicles, trucks, caravans, moving at 30-40 in a national speed limit zone ? Is it "necessary" to overtake ?
And if you are passing a slower vehicle, might it not decide to move into the turn lane in front of your path over the hatching ?

You might disagree my use of the word "hazard" - perhaps I could have put it differently.

But essentially, I am saying exactly what you quote from the Highway Code - "should not enter" unless "necessary", and you can "see that it is safe to use".

Different drivers - and in different scenario's, or road conditions, will make different decisions in any particular instance. The hatchings within broken white lines are something I would use with caution, a decision made under the specific conditions applying [that's road and traffic conditions, not any conditions of my own feeling late or frustrated by slower traffic, that is].

If the Highway Code gives specific cautions as to the situation, then I call that situation as a potentional "hazard".

Anyway, perhaps we are falling into the trap here of arguing specifics and semantics on generalisations. Whatever scenario I put up, I'm sure someone else could provide an alternative where we would both agree it would be safe - and vice versa.

An interesting debate nonetheless - I've seen so many near-misses (and been on receiving end of a few) on hatchings, that I treat them with caution and am happy to say so.

P.
 
PS - I don't know if the head-banger smiley was aimed at the whole of my post - or just expressing frustration at the junk and debris which might collect on a hatched area ?

Might that debris represent what I would call - in my simple old-fart language - a "hazard " ?
[I would have put a smiley here, but they don't seem to be available to me]
P.
 
Erm.. PPS !

Maybe I can sum up my view on chevrons/hatchings maks a bit better than "hazard".

Presumably, the got painted on the road deliberately. For a reason.

So I ask myself, does my reason for wanting to drive over them override the reasons they might have been put there in the first place ?
[given current road/traffic conditions of course].

P.
 
[I would have put a smiley here, but they don't seem to be available to me]
P.

Are you using the "quick reply" box at the bottom of the thread?
If so click on the button "GO ADVANCED" and you will have all the smileys you would ever want :thumb:
 
Ah, OK. Thanks Jimti - I had wondered why sometimes the smiley box was there and sometimes not.

:bannana:

P.
 
I used to ride a good deal with a mate who was, at the time, a serving Met officer and holder of a Class 1 qualification. He would routinely use cross-hatched "ghost islands" when bordered with a broken line for overtaking, but only if safe to do so, and only after the junction that it was protecting. He also had no qualms about entering or crossing a hatched area that was there to separate lanes whenever it was safe to do so if it made an overtake either possible or easier.

As Petermansell has already said, the major downside of this is the grit and other debris that tends to collect in these areas.
 
He would routinely use cross-hatched "ghost islands" when bordered with a broken line for overtaking, but only if safe to do so, and only after the junction that it was protecting. He also had no qualms about entering or crossing a hatched area that was there to separate lanes whenever it was safe to do so if it made an overtake either possible or easier.

Fair comment.

All of it , but especially the bit I bolded.

But of course he's a highly trained driver - whatever any of "us" might think about our driving talents , we'd have a hard job convincing a court that we are as good as a police class 1 bod.
And he's probably usually got a co-pilot (also a class 1 often) in the car with him as extra eyes.

And of course - on police business - he can probably argue that he passes my test "does the reason for using this bit of painted tarmac override the reason for the markings ?"

OK, not best put, but you know what I mean - he's likely following/chasing some scrote who is putting the rest of us in peril. So he would have his reasons , and the training, to do it. But I'm sure he looks carefully at each case.

[By the way - OOPS ! - I kept typing "he" - of course any of yer said Police Class 1's might well be a she .. Sorry Ladies !]

P.
 
For clarity, I was referring to he and I riding motorcycles when he was off duty, so there would never have been any question of him claiming any exemption for his actions. You did pick out the really important bit in bold though :thumb:
 
It all depends on the interpretation of 'necessary',

If you think you could stand up in court and explain why it was necessary to the satisfaction of the Court,then go ahead. if you cannot argue it is necessary then do not enter the hatch area.

It will depend on the individual circunmstances, it is not an absolute offence such as rules saying 'shall not'
 
Oh, OK St13 - got you now. I did wonder how you happened to be "riding with".

But he could still point to his Class1 as evidence of a high level of driving skills, even if something went ****-up whilst he was off duty.

And , of course, on a bike you are much smaller, and quicker and more agile, so it's a lot different to the car-driver mindset I had lazily reverted to during this debate.

But one thing about motorcycles - well I asked earlier if the junk and debris on little used sections of tarmac represent what I , for the sake of convenience, call a "hazard" - I'd be pretty sure you as a biker would agree that is was !
Whether you hit it yourself or whether you got hit by something thrown up by a car passing on hatchings, etc.

P.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom